Federal Judiciary

Petitions to Watch | Conferences of 12.5.08 & 12.12.08

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conferences on December 5 and December 12. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, visit our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

Conference of December 5, 2008

__________________

Docket: 08-190
Title: Curry v. Hensinger
Issue: Whether a public school principal violated the First Amendment by prohibiting a student from attaching a religious message to candy canes used as part of a classroom exercise.

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply (awaiting from counsel)

__________________

Docket: 08-304
Title: Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District, et al. v. United States, ex rel. Wilson
Issue: Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over False Claims Act suits based on revelations in administrative reports or audits issued by state or local governments, as opposed to the federal government.

• Opinion below (4th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of National League of Cities (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Pennsylvania, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-326
Title: Beard v. Hannon
Issue: Whether a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over corrections officials in another state sued over allegations relating to a prisoner’s transfer to the state in which the suit was filed.

• Opinion below (1st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-441
Title: Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
Issue: Whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case.

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amicus curiae of National Employment Lawyers Association (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Conference of December 12, 2008

__________________

Docket: 07-1428; 08-328
Title: Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al.
Issue: Whether municipalities may decline to certify results of an exam that would make disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion than minority applicants, due to fears that certifying the results would lead to charges of racial discrimination.

• Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (07-1428)
• Supplemental brief of petitioners (07-1428)
• Petition for certiorari (08-328)
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of Center for Individual Rights, et al. (in support of petitioners) (08-328)

__________________

Docket: 08-235
Title: Rasul, et al. v. Myers, et al.
Issue: Whether a suit by former Guantanamo prisoners against military officials for alleged torture and religious humiliation was improperly dismissed.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of National Institute of Military Justice and Military Law, et al. (in support of petitioners)

__________________

Docket: 08-310
Title: Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, Alaska
Issue: Whether a municipal tax that falls exclusively on large vessels in the city’s harbor violates the Tonnage Clause, Commerce Clause, or Due Process Clause. (Disclosure: Howe & Russell represent the respondent.)

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of Alaska)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-345
Title: Alabama, et al. v. Pope
Issue: Whether a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees from a defendant that ultimately agrees with its legal position.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Brief amici curiae of International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. (in support of petitioner)
• Brief amici curiae of Commonwealth of Virginia and 26 Other States (in support of petitioner)

__________________

Docket: 08-388
Title: City of Philadelphia v. Lawrence
Issue: Whether paramedics trained in - but found not to be responsible for - fire suppression are exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

• Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Docket: 08-517
Title: Curry v. Bulter
Issue: Whether the Court’s ruling in California v. Cunningham (2007), which struck down part of the state’s sentencing scheme, was dictated by the Court’s ruling in Blakely v. Washington (2004) or instead announced a “new rule” that cannot be applied retroactively on habeas review.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

__________________

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on November 26, 2008 (boomark / email).